Climate Denial or Climate Science. Who polices the Witch Hunters?


On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.Donald Trumps Climate Beliefs?#MAGA Make science Great again.

On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.



 “A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!”
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible




Sighs... just 17% worse that you thought...


You read that right. The Earth is now going to help us kill ourselves. In a massive new study published Wednesday in the influential journal Nature, no less than 50…
DAILYKOS.COM
LikeShow more reactions
Comment
12 Comments
Comments
John Ferguson Couldn't happen to a nicer species
LikeReply214 hrs
Jon Scott most will be affected
LikeReply13 hrs
Roger Lewis Phwoar!!! Climate Catastrophe Porn, can´t get enough of it. Climate science discovers the Carbon Cycle, perhaps in another ten years they will actually understand it! Misanthropic propaganda such as this is laughable, extremism and founded in massive i...See More
LikeReply13 hrsEdited
John Ferguson Mankind is causing global warming by destroying the environment. By chopping down the rain forests and filling the sea with toxins we are creating an unsustainable environment for our own existence let alone the other species on the planet.
Saying that the world is perfectly fine is absolutely delusional
LikeReply13 hrs
Roger Lewis No one I am aware of says the world is fine or that humans do not have bad impacts and poorly managed systems for co existing with nature.
What this article seeks to say is that CO2 is a forcer of Global Warming and that Human CO2 emissions are the biggest impact that Mankind is having.
CO2 is a natural chemical compound made of the King of Elements Carbon combined with two oxygen atoms. Plant life and sea life use CO2 as their food in simple terms and breathe out the oxygen that we breathe. This article is a travesty of understanding of the Carbon Cycle and how all Carbon Based life forms both Plant life and Mammals like humans would be in deep trouble without it, to a large extent we are Carbon.
The Carbon Cycle and the climate are related and The earth and its eco system and atmosphere are also part of a larger solar system climate as well.
Here is a very good pair of presentations on the carbon soil cycle.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgmssrVInP0
LikeReply12 hrsEdited
Roger Lewis As a committed environmentalist, I find myself increasingly frustrated that a huge amount of political capital is wasted on the CO2 debate when the provable and winnable arguments regarding renewables instead of Nuclear of Fracking etc can be won empir...See More
LikeReply12 hrs
Roger Lewis http://bit.ly/2fnKzk1 CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report #segalstad #Jaworowski#RealScience #Spencer
LikeReply12 hrs
Roger Lewis http://bit.ly/2fnKzk1 this study deals with the poorly understoof flux of co2 exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere it finds a large underetimate as to the sequestration to oceans from the atmosphere of some 13.6PGC p.a
LikeReply12 hrs
John Ferguson Oh thanks god ! For a second I thought we were doomed
LikeReply11 hrs
Glyn Goodwin You do understand that we are adding 30-40 billion tons of CO2 to the system every year don't you Roger? The way this is panning out we are heading for a Permian extinction event. Research has shown that the little ice age was stated by a decrease in co2 of only 17 billion tons. The oceans health is crucial to the planet, but the only way that can plausibly be helped long term is by reducing CO2 emissions.
LikeReply211 hrs
Roger Lewis Glyn, the accumulation arguments regarding human emissions are being re-visited based upon empirical research as I linked to that report is a few weeks old. I understand the more dire claims based upon the modelling, I understand modelling on computersvery well and expect the predictions to be scaled back and not dialled up as per the dire climate catastrophe porn which the OP article represents. The IPCC reports if you read them are actually measured and proportionate, the science is scientific and sober and does not make truth claims which can not be substantiated. If one engages in the full spectrum of the scientific fields encompassed within Climate Science one finds that there are many aspects of Climate change which are wholly more influential than CO2 let alone man's emissions and contributions thereto. How long Anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere as so called well mixed green house gases is a bit of a finger in the air effort I am afraid and I am persuaded by empirical data from Bomb test curves and the study I link to above and not by the early modelling hypothesis, and estimates adopted as starting assumptions for early modelling efforts. One has to start somewhere with ones assumptions and then tune parameters as empirical evidence is collected and appropriate time tables observed. So yes Glyn I have studied the science both in the IPCC reports and elsewhere and find the science bears little resemblance when you read it to the sensationalist porn in this linked to article. From what I have learned about the science I personally see absolutely no objection to CO2 at 400PPM and getting the genie back in the bottle is frankly not within our gift . I think we should pursue alternative energy as so-called fossil fuels and nuclear energy as so very old fashioned and do not promote decentralised and autonomous community-based government. I find most so-called Climate Change policy coercive and poorly supported empirically and it seems to me to mask a push for a stronger more authoritarian centralised government. My arguments from a Political economy perspective are made above. A simple point of disagreement between us Glyn might be that you consider CO2 to be pollution and I categorically do not. I do think that the Hydro Carbons industry is a polluting industry and environmentally damaging but their crimes lie in other chemical compounds and despoilation not CO emissions. Monetising Carbon actually lets polluters off the hook how more people who claim to be environmentalists do not see this is beyond me.,https://drive.google.com/.../0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll.../view...
John Porter What is PgC?
LikeReply11 hrs
Roger Lewis John Porter Peta grammes Carbon 1 petagram = gigatonne
LikeReply11 hrsEdited
John Ferguson Glyn glyn glyn... You are buying into the mass hysteria that science and reports are producing . Think for yourself dude ... It's all fine. Climate change is all in the mind man. Chill. Keep driving your 4x4! Keep drilling for oil and what ever you do don't worry. It's all just a big fat lie ....
LikeReply111 hrs
Roger Lewis John Ferguson CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the physics is quite clear so are water vapour and so is Methane. The question regarding Human emissions which make up a small part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and how much difference they make is the real...See More
LikeReply10 hrsEdited
Earl Bramley-Howard Listen Roger... we all understand the carbon cycle... however the issue with co2 is the carbon which was sequestered by nature over millions of years and stored as coal or oil. That carbon has been removed from the carbon cycle. But when we dig it up a...See More
LikeReply210 hrsEdited
Earl Bramley-Howard I would like to remind members that climate change denial is treated as 'trolling' in this group #admin warning
LikeReply210 hrs
John Ferguson Earl Bramley-Howard
I guess sarcasm is frowned upon
LikeReply10 hrs
Earl Bramley-Howard helps if you write [sarc] because as #admin I have to read hundreds of posts and when a thread is puring out 'denial' it's hard to distinguish between the denial and the sarcasm.
LikeReply210 hrsEdited
John Ferguson Earl Bramley-Howard fair point . Apologies . I am genuinely concerned when I read posts such as these ... Sorry for offence
LikeReply19 hrs
Earl Bramley-Howard no worries... apologies for misinterpreting the sarcasm (it's still early)
LikeReply29 hrs
Roger Lewis Earl Bramley-Howard Earl, when Carbon is re-released from fossil fuel hydro carbons, it re-enters the cycle and goes through the process again, this process is one where differentiation becomes contentious. CO2 is a Green-house gas, C12 C13 and C14 as...See More
LikeReply9 hrs
Earl Bramley-Howard oh please get real... it would *normally* take thousands or even millions of years for that coal deep underground to re-enter the carbon cycle (usually via volcanic erruptions).
At present we dump 800 years' worth of 'volcanic' carbon into the atmosphe...See More
LikeReply29 hrsEdited
Roger Lewis Earl Bramley-Howard Earl I watched the 2009 video, it very interesting , I would be interested to see how Richard would update his talk today based upon Svensmarks work and its confirmation in the Cern Cloud experiments. With respect to Richards intere...See More
LikeReply8 hrs
Roger Lewis Earl your point about volcanic CO2, perhaps you missed the point volcanism leads to Cooling and the co2 aspects of volcanism has more to do with increased sequestration of co2 in oceans as cooler oceans sequester more co2. The ocean cycle is sequestration at the poles and Outgassing at the warmer equator. Although I expect you already knew that.
LikeReply8 hrsEdited
Roger Lewis

Write a reply...




Paul Sousek Every day humanity burns about 90 million barrels of oil. I calculate that adds roughly 36 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere - every single day. Plus coal, plus gas, some 30 billion tons each year. Of that almost half remains in the atmosphere whil...See More
LikeReply18 hrsEdited
Roger Lewis From Segelstadt a Norweigan geologist and former IPCC lead author who resigned . ´´The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air's CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction: ~4%. This fraction would account for less than 0.5 W/m2...See More
LikeReplyRemove Preview6 hrsEdited
Roger Lewis

Write a reply...




Dawn Tibble seeing as we are the most destructive animal on the earth...
LikeReply16 hrs
Earl Bramley-Howard Roger Lewis... knock yourself out with facts. You clearly didn't watch the Alley video because he addresses the Cosmic Ray theory. It's one of the old perennial weeds of climate change denial... keeps coming back.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global...

LikeReply1 hr
Roger Lewis Earl I did watch the whole thing why would I not have done. With respect to the cosmic ray thing the video was in 2009 the research of Svensmark has developed further and made some striking discoveries since.

The Cloud results of Svensmark were confir...See More


The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to…
HOME.CERN
Earl Bramley-Howard This is a straw man argument and typical of climate change denialism. Nothing here throws out the consensus on mankind's pollution being responsible for the *extra* warming we see, nor does it disprove that co2 is the main forcing for the *extra* warming we see, due to the sheer scale of our emmissions. 30 billion tons dumped into the atmosphere every year. The maths of co2 heat absorbtion has been known for well over a hundred years... and is matched by real-world data.
If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted 'evidence' for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #adminwarning
LikeReply44 mins
Roger Lewis Earl,
Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive.
The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.
LikeReply21 mins
Roger Lewis

Write a reply...

Earl Bramley-Howard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4

A perennial favorite among climate denial myths is that the earth's current warming is…
YOUTUBE.COM
LikeReply1 hr
Earl Bramley-Howard vulcanism leads to short term cooling because of the shorter term sulphates and particulates. These rain out as soot and acid rain. The long term effect is for the longer lived co2 to trap heat & to warm the atmosphere & oceans. When we burnt coal with...See More
LikeReply56 minsEdited
Earl Bramley-Howard There is no 'evidence' that the oceans can increase their 'sink' and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else?
LikeReply1 hr
John Porter All these facts that co2 is not the problem as the water slowly laps at your legs. It will be waist high before the argument is won
LikeReply11 hrEdited
Roger Lewis There is no 'evidence' that the oceans can increase their 'sink' and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else? http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/ This paper downloadable here, https://t.co/bKVcszuDsI Actually presents evidence that appears to show precisely that Earl. CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report

´´5 2010). Our best data driven bottom-up global estimate of NCE is -6.07±3.38 PgC / year. That means, that our data suggests a
large net sink. However, the amount of C in the atmosphere is increasing by an estimated rate of 4.27±0.10 PgC / year.
Combining both estimates, we obtain a C imbalance of 10.34±3.38 PgC / year (=NCE-CGR). Potential reasons for this
mismatch are discussed Section 4.
Using the ensemble approach we obtain an uncertainty in NCE of ±3.38 PgC / year. With quadrature error accumulation`` Thats pause for thought surely?


BIOGEOSCIENCES-DISCUSS.NET




Earl Bramley-Howard That does nothing of the sort. You've already had your warning. This is your final one.
LikeReply7 mins
Roger Lewis


Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing?





Probably a good idea to save stuff like this... before the new Fossil Fools 'Administration' deletes it...

Models that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming observed over the past century. Models that also account…
EPA.GOV
LikeShow more reactions
Comment
Comments
Glyn Goodwin The bureau of alternative facts...
LikeReply119 hrs
Roger Lewis http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdfThe scientific literature is I think quite safe, the alarm industry is perhaps another question.
LikeReply17 hrs
Martin Dwyer or looking at it another way, CO2 really has been quite stable for a long time and suddenly isn't! It's known that doubling CO2 (from 280 to 560ppm say) results in an energy imbalance or 'radiative forcing' of 4W per square metre. That's plenty enou...See More
LikeReply15 hrs
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyerhttp://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/.../summary-of-non... There are other views regarding Radiative forcing and the maths is actually coming out in favour of fundamental flaws in the modelling assumptions. I know Lord Monkton is a pariah in these parts but the 4 errors highlighted in these slides are easily checkable. He also quotes Happer on one of the 4 errors he cites. I model sound so the fourier transform is meat and drink for me others have a bit of a learning curve to see what Monkton is on about in what he calls official error 4.https://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/.../slides...
Also see. https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../leading-climate.../

LikeReplyRemove Preview15 hrsEdited
Martin Dwyer "Lord" Monckton very rightly is a pariah. As for the Engineer's critique you posted above, I'm sad to see it contains some really basic errors. An engineer ought to know better. Shame on him
LikeReply115 hrs
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyer Martin Please could you set out what you believe the basic errors to be Gavin Schmidt was corrected by Dr Glassman if you look at the rebuttal and Glassmans response.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/.../gavin_schmidt...
Martin Dwyer well for a start the silly graph claiming that 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity. This is false and based upon an inability to understand the difference between carbon flux, and accumulated carbon. A bit like the difference between fuel consumption and the amount of petrol in a car's fuel tank. This is a serious shortcoming for someone claiming to be an engineer
LikeReply115 hrsEdited
Roger Lewis MArtin I think Glassman is perfectly aware of Carbon Flux, what he challenges is that the Carbon sinks distinguish between Anthropogenic and Natural Carbon outgassing. This recent paper on Carbon Fluxes tends to suggest that Segalstad, Glassman, Jarrowski etc are actually correct following Henrys Law and the IPPC has got its understanding of carbon sink processes in a muddle.http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/
Martin Dwyer It's immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is what it is .. 400+ppm and that has consequences. If it wasn't for the the fact that more than half the CO2 we emit gets reabsorbed by plants/soil or by oceans (where it causes acidification) then it would already b...See More
LikeReply114 hrsEdited
Roger Lewis Martin what you claim to be settled with a high degree of certainty , simply does not hold up to scrutiny. The idea of well-mixed CO2 being stagnant in the atmosphere is an absurd notion and Henrys law shows that the oceans have almost unlimited absorption capacity for CO2 and the Process by which CO2 is absorbed means that the Oceans will become slightly less alkaline which is not the same as Acidification in the sense that they become Acid. The use of language that way is exaggeration and sensationalisation seeking to stoke a climate of fear. The Rocket Science journal comp+rises 4 not overly long papers that falsify the AGW theory. This series of Articles written with a no dog in the fight balanced approach should put some scientific skepticism into the belly of anything other than the more ardent Climate Catastrophe fundamentalists. Climatism is not scientific.

http://www.free-the-memes.net/.../warming3/ClimateGate3.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher.../article10973.htm

http://www.free-the-memes.net/.../warming2/hottest_year.html

http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming/warming.html

Finally, if you have the stomach for it here is a PDF with a 101 regarding all sides to the argument, Denier, Warmist, Luke Warmist and Alarmist.

https://drive.google.com/.../0B6ZHfkDjveZzYXU3UHh.../view...

Some of the CO stuff
https://drive.google.com/.../0B6ZHfkDjveZzYmtqUVB.../view...

And some Sea Ice extent Stuff.

https://drive.google.com/.../0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll.../view...


On November 19, 2009, a 61 megabyte file called "FOI2009.zip" started to circulate on the…
FREE-THE-MEMES.NET
LikeReplyRemove Preview12 hrsEdited
Martin Dwyer Roger, why on Earth are you peddling this ludicrous nonsense in here? .. wouldn't you feel more at home in a UKIP appreciation group? Well-mixed greenhouse gases are called that because they are well-mixed, ie fairly uniform concentrations in the atmosphere.. are you suggesting that CO2 concentration varies considerably somehow because it doesn't? Why on Earth do you suppose that CO2 is now 400+ppm, while before the industrial era accompanied by substantial population growth it was 280ppm for a long time? What else has happened on the planet that could conceivably have caused such a rise? Hint: it isn't volcanoes
LikeReply8 hrs
Roger Lewis Martin, calling something ludicrous does not make it so Martin. Everything posted here is supported by the data and explained by known science tested by experimentation. The data itself falsifies the Climate models. Catastrophist Alarmism around the field of Climate Change is the nonsense that is pedalled in this field Martin. Serious scientists when mathematical errors and misapplication of principles amend their findings in accordance with the clarifications. Only those with something to hide or defend throw their Toys out of the pram. CO2 does vary in concentration across the globe, this is because the outgassing that occurs naturally and the Sinks are not evenly distributed, man's emissions are very small compared to the whole, Climate change is also regional different parts of the system have different effects in different locations, regions etc, Think Micro Climate to get the idea, there are lots of famous micro Climates, holiday resorts and health spas demonstrate their enduring presence over climate timescales.Climate and environment science is not a political football for me Martin, I have studied the science and read all sides of the scientific argument, the gaps in the data and scope of interpretation is not settled, not even as settled as any field really can be. AGW is a theory, what's more it is a theory that has been falsified by the data , the models are getting better, but whilst they have been excellent for learning about climate they are not a good predictive tool.
The hysteria will die down in due course and those given to hysteria will find something else to get excited about. Extremist views on CLimatism and climate politics are as with all zealotry counter productive to democratic institutions the Green Party should not espouse extremist views in promulgating climate alarmism that is what they are doing.
LikeReply29 mins

Comments

Check Out Popular Posts